On
Friday, delegates met in plenary throughout the day and into the night
to continue deliberations over the draft SPM. A consistent format was
followed throughout deliberations, with the Co-Chairs first introducing
the text of a paragraph and highlighting the reasons why some comments
by countries and organizations were or were not incorporated. Delegates
then discussed that paragraph line-by-line.

In the
morning and afternoon sessions, delegates considered the section of the
SPM concerned with the current status of CCS technology. In the
afternoon and evening, delegates also considered the section on the
geographical relationship between the sources and storage opportunities
for carbon dioxide. Earth Negotiations Bulletin coverage stopped at
8.00pm.

The
contact group established on Thursday to revise the first two paragraphs
of the SPM met for a second time. Other contact groups were established
to discuss a figure representing the geographical relationship between
carbon dioxide emissions sources and storage potential, and issues on
the costs of CCS and its economic potential.

CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT SUMMARY FOR
POLICY MAKERS

Recalling that the SPM had already gone through an extensive review
process, Co-Chair Metz urged delegates to move forward on approving the
draft text. Delegates then turned to a line-by-line consideration of the
text.

What is the current status of CCS technology?
BELGIUM said that a figure representing capture systems was unclear and
proposed using a figure from the Special Report instead. Co-Chair Metz
invited Belgium to work with the Lead Authors on this issue. On the
corrosiveness of pipelines for transportation, delegates agreed to a
proposal by CANADA to remove reference to hydrogen sulphide, given its
negative connotation, and to refer to contaminants instead.

On
geological storage, BELGIUM, with the UK, called for a specific
reference to secure reservoirs. DENMARK, supported by the UK and the
NETHERLANDS, suggested emphasizing caprock as a necessary trapping
mechanism. After Lead Author Peter Cook noted that caprock is essential
unless injection takes place at a certain depth, language reflecting
this was inserted.

On the
issue of unminable coal, the UK proposed, and delegates agreed, to
insert a footnote explaining that if the coal was subsequently mined,
carbon dioxide would be released. Delegates also agreed to add a
footnote including reference to the dense phase of carbon dioxide at
depths below 800 meters, as proposed by the UK with the support of
AUSTRIA and the US, and that the footnote should refer to the recovery
of methane, as suggested by FRANCE. Delegates further agreed to include
a figure that would provide an overview of both offshore and onshore
geological storage options.

Regarding ocean storage technology, discussion centered on whether the
environmental risks of ocean storage should be referred to in this
section and whether the limited stage of development of ocean storage
technology is adequately reflected in the draft text. A number of
countries, including BELGIUM, DENMARK, FRANCE and GERMANY, supported the
inclusion of some sort of reference to risks. Co-Chair Metz noted that
the SPM is organized so that all risks associated with CCS are addressed
in a separate section. Other countries, including JAPAN, KENYA and SAUDI
ARABIA, said that a reference to risks in this section was not
necessary. On the section noting that ocean storage can be carried out
in two ways, via injection into the water column or via deposits on the
sea floor, AUSTRALIA, supported by BELGIUM and CANADA, suggested noting
that ocean storage may “potentially” be carried out in two ways.
Although JAPAN and the NETHERLANDS expressed reservations about this,
AUSTRALIA’s suggestion was agreed to.

On the
relationship between carbon dioxide stored in the ocean and the global
carbon cycle, Lead Author Ken Caldeira noted that the consequences of
the equilibration between carbon dioxide in the ocean and the atmosphere
are nuanced and difficult to express in the SPM. After further comments
from CHILE, NEW ZEALAND and GERMANY regarding clarification of the
process and time scale of equilibration, delegates agreed to the
original version of the draft text, which states that this carbon
dioxide would “eventually equilibrate with the carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.” BELGIUM proposed, and delegates agreed, to reference the
section of the Special Report on environmental impacts, risk, and risk
management. Co-Chair Metz noted work would continue with Japan on
clarifying the measurement scale used in a figure providing an overview
of ocean storage options.

After
lunch, Co-Chair Davidson introduced text on the reaction of carbon
dioxide with metal oxides, and noted that while the technology is still
in the research phase, certain applications using waste streams are in
the demonstration phrase. Delegates agreed to the text with minor
amendments.

On
industrial uses of carbon dioxide, Co-Chair Davidson noted that the
draft text incorporated a proposal by Canada, which was supported by the
US, to note that enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is excluded from the
statement that the potential for industrial uses of carbon dioxide is
small. GERMANY noted that including such a reference could falsely
suggest that EOR is a large opportunity. Delegates agreed to delete the
EOR reference from the text and that the Co-Chairs would instead develop
a footnote to explain it.

Co-Chair Davidson introduced text that: highlights that components of
CCS are in various stages of development; notes that, although CCS
systems can be put together from existing technologies that are mature
or economically feasible under specific conditions, the maturity of the
overall system may be less than some of its components; and refers to a
table summarizing the current maturity of system components. Delegates
approved a comment previously submitted by Germany to note that there is
relatively little experience in combining carbon dioxide capture,
transport and storage into a fully integrated CCS system, and that the
use of CCS for large scale power plants remains to be implemented.

Delegates discussed proposed revisions to the table on the current
maturity of CCS system components. Several delegates, including GERMANY,
AUSTRIA, EGYPT, the UK, and the NETHERLANDS, proposed amendments to text
in the table caption that would state that more research and development
could reduce costs and improve reliability and safety. The US raised
concerns that such text would be policy prescriptive. Delegates agreed
to delete any text in the caption that goes beyond explaining that the
table is about the current maturity of CCS system components and that
the highest level of maturity for each component is identified in the
table. On the table itself, delegates also agreed to changes proposed by
GERMANY and others on what is meant by “market maturity,” and by JAPAN
and KOREA on the inclusion of reference to the two types of ocean
storage: direct injection “dissolution type” and direct injection “lake
type.”

What is the geographical relationship between the sources
and storage opportunities for carbon dioxide?
Delegates then turned to a consideration of the section of the SPM on
large point sources and their geographical relationship to geological
and ocean storage. Discussions on geological storage focused on types of
sources, the distance from sources to storage locations, and the
location of sources. Delegates agreed to changes proposed by EGYPT and
others clarifying that the text refers to major point sources. KENYA
sought clarification of why a particular figure (300km) was being used.
Lead Author John Gale explained that the 300km should be taken as a
guide. Delegates then agreed to the text with minor modifications. After
the US asked whether sources were concentrated in urban areas, delegates
agreed that the text should refer to ï¿½industrial and urban areas.ï¿½

Discussions on ocean storage focused on its regional distribution,
maturity, and location, and on the existing literature. JAPAN
underscored that ocean storage potential varies regionally, and that
Japan has more potential for ocean than geological storage. AUSTRIA,
AUSTRALIA and others expressed concern that the language implied greater
technical maturity and scientific analysis on ocean storage than
actually exists. The US cautioned that the supporting scientific
literature consists of only one report that should not be generalized.
Lead Author Ken Caldeira said there is a lack of literature on the
determining locations for deep ocean storage. AUSTRALIA, supported by
the UK, said that meeting the depth criteria alone should not be
sufficient to establish ocean storage locations. JAPAN replied that
environmental and other considerations are addressed in other SPM
sections. The agreed text included a statement that ï¿½globally, a small
portion of large point sources is close to potential ocean storage
locations.ï¿½

CHINA,
supported by BANGLADESH, EGYPT and SAUDI ARABIA, and opposed by AUSTRIA,
called for removing a reference to developing countries as possessing
the places where most of the increase in the number of sources is
expected to occur. Lead Author John Gale explained that the reference to
developing countries was based on projection scenarios on future
emissions in the Special Report. AUSTRIA called for distinguishing
between large and small point sources, and suggested referring to
projections in the sentence on future emissions in developing countries.

CANADA, with the US and NORWAY, proposed including information on
storage as well as capture when stating the percentages of global fossil
fuel carbon dioxide emissions that could be suitable for capture. Lead
Author Keywan Riahi clarified that there is reference to only capture in
the SPM and not to storage because there is a lack of literature on
storage. CANADA proposed using information from power generating
emissions, while the US proposed including emissions from both industry
and electricity generation. MALAYSIA and BELGIUM noted that the Special
Report referred to 20 - 40% global fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions
as being technically suitable for capture, and proposed deleting
reference to economic suitability. AUSTRIA suggested separating the
section of the paragraph on scenario emissions from the section on
emissions amenable to capture. After further discussions and informal
consultations, delegates agreed to remove references to developing
countries and economic suitability, and to state that the proximity of
future large point sources to potential storage sites has not been
studied, rather than that it is uncertain.

On a
figure indicating the geographical relationship between carbon dioxide
emission sources and sedimentary basins with geological storage
potential, CHINA proposed removing the figure, saying that much of the
information was not supported by valid scientific facts, and that it did
not include future source emissions. AUSTRIA, NEW ZEALAND, the US and
CANADA supported keeping the figure because it contains relevant
information. Lead Author John Gale explained the data sources for the
figure. A contact group was convened to resolve this issue, which met
into the evening.

IN THE CORRIDORS

The
workday stretched into the late hours of the night. Despite the amount
of text left to consider and the limited time in which to do it, the
atmosphere remained upbeat throughout the day. Several IPCC veterans
seemed unsurprised at the long days and speed of progress. Some
delegates noted that the momentum and good will from the morning session
began to give way to more serious disagreements as the day progressed,
though they expressed hope that this trend would reverse on Saturday.

This issue of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin ï¿½
<enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by
Ingrid Barnsley, Alexis
Conrad, Marï¿½a Gutiï¿½rrez, and
Miquel Muï¿½oz. The Digital
Editor is Francis Dejon. The
Editor is Pamela S. Chasek,
Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>
and the Director of IISD
Reporting Services is
Langston James ï¿½Kimoï¿½ Goree
VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the
Government of the United
States of America (through
the Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the Swiss
Agency for Environment,
Forests and Landscape (SAEFL),
the United Kingdom (through
the Department for
International Development -
DFID), the Danish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, the
Government of Germany
(through the German Federal
Ministry of Environment -
BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), the
Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, the
European Commission (DG-ENV),
and the Italian Ministry of
Environment. General Support
for the Bulletin
during 2005 is provided by
the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP),
the Government of Australia,
the Austrian Federal
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry, Environment and
Water Management, the
Ministry of Sustainable
Development and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Sweden, the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Norway, the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Finland, SWAN International,
the Japanese Ministry of
Environment (through the
Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies -
IGES), and the Japanese
Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry (through the
Global Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
into French has been
provided by the
International Organization
of the Francophonie (IOF)
and the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Funding for
the translation of the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
into Spanish has been
provided by the Ministry of
Environment of Spain. The
opinions expressed in the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect
the views of IISD or other
donors. Excerpts from the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin,
including requests to
provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-646-536-7556 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA. The ENB Team at
IPCC-24 can be contacted at
Room 4A, 4th Floor, ICAO, or
by e-mail at <Ingrid@iisd.org>.